--- In [email protected], t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --- In [email protected], t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > --- In [email protected], t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > wrote:
> > "This verse [II:55] 

this verse, by itself, in contrast to verses that following ...

> does not record any outer sign of the man whose intellect is steady
and who is established in the Self, because there cannot be any outer
sign to show that a man is absorbed deep within himself.  The inner
state of such a man cannot be judged by outer signs.  It cannot be
said that he sits like this or like that or 
closes his eyes in any particular manner. 

"outer signs" is defined by example as a class of criteria that are
simple, even superficial, quite overt, external things. It is not
obvious that M is extending his prohibition to signs not in this
overt, superficial class.

> No such external signs can serve as criteria of this state....The
Lord does not enter into any such description. The signs  recounted
here [in II-5, not the rest of the chapter] are only subjective. They
concern the inner condition of the mind...."


The Lord does not enter into any such description here [II-55], but he
clearly does in the following verses [II-56-60] and in other parts of
the gita, noteably 16:1-3.  Such descriptions of the qualities of a
"person of steady prajna" may not be overt signs, that is "outer
signs" as classified and defined by example above, but there are still
abundant descriptions presented. 


For example:

*****************************************
A person whose mind is unperturbed by sorrow, who does not crave
pleasures, and who is free from attachment, fear, and anger; such a
person is called a sage of steady Prajna. (2.56)

Those who are not attached to anything, who are neither elated by
getting desired results nor troubled by undesired results, their
Prajna is deemed steady. (2.57)

When one can completely withdraw (or restrain) the senses from the
sense objects as a tortoise withdraws its limbs (into the shell), then
the Prajna of such a person is considered steady. (2.58)

The desire for sensual pleasures fades away if one abstains from sense
enjoyment, but the craving (for sense enjoyment) remains. The craving
also disappears from the one who has seen (or known) the Supreme. (2.59)

Restless senses, O Arjuna, forcibly carry away the mind of even a wise
person striving for perfection. (2.60)


For continuity, here are the verses leading up to the above:

Arjuna said: O Krishna, what is the mark of a person whose Prajna is
steady and merged in superconscious state? How does a person of steady
Prajna speak? How does such a person sit and walk? (2.54) (Prajna
means consciousness, mind, intellect, judgment, discrimination, and
wisdom.) 

The Supreme Lord said: When one is completely free from all desires of
the mind and is satisfied in the Self by the (joy of) Self, then one
is called a person of steady Prajna, O Arjuna. (2.55)

****************************************************


II-55 comentary focuses on "outer signs". The above verses, II:56-60,
are a new and different category:"signs of absence". These are an
opposite category of "outward signs" discussed in M commentary for
II-55. These signs of absence are a LACK of:  craving, sorrow, 
attachment, fear, and anger, elation, troublesome demeanor, wandering
senses, desire for sensual pleasures, etc. These signs of absence may
be either overt or not apparent. For example, anger (explosive karhoda
) can be felt internally and controlled, not visable to others, or it
can manifest and explod in clearly visuable rage. 

These signs of absence may not be a sufficient sign for a person of
steady prajna, but they appear to be a necessary sign. They appear to
provide a disqualification criteria for a "person of steady prajna". 

That is, for a person who never experiences (inward) or expresses
(outward) anger, this absence is not a sufficient sign to proclaim
"steady prajna.  However, the experience (inward) or expressed
(outward) anger of anyone may be a sufficient criteria for indicating
that they are NOT of steady prajna.

 
>... But what are outer signs?

16:1-3 goes into this in some detail.

*************************************************
The Supreme Lord said: Fearlessness, purity of heart, perseverance in
the yoga of knowledge, charity, sense restraint, sacrifice, study of
the scriptures, austerity, honesty; (16.01)
Nonviolence, truthfulness, absence of anger, renunciation, equanimity,
abstaining from malicious talk, compassion for all creatures, freedom
from greed, gentleness, modesty, absence of fickleness; (16.02)
Splendor, forgiveness, fortitude, cleanliness, absence of malice, and
absence of pride; these are the qualities of those endowed with divine
virtues, O Arjuna. (16.03)
**************************************************

Some of these are repetitions of the "signs of absence" - fear, anger
etc. Others are explicit signs of "one of divine nature" (which I hold
is to be in a similar similar class as a "person of steady prajna"): 
purity of heart, perseverance, charity, sacrifice, study of the
scriptures, austerity, honesty, truthfulness, equanimity, compassion
for all creatures, gentleness, modesty, splendor, forgiveness,
fortitude and cleanliness. (Sounds a bit like the Boy Scout Code:
trustworthy, loyal, helpful, freindly courtesous, kind ...) 

These qualities may not be sufficient to define one of divine nature,
but they appear to be required. That is if these qualities are lacking
in a person, they have not yet fully cultivated a divine nature.


> > > > And then *after* that first statement go on
> > > > to give a whole list of psychological and moralic features? My
> > > > impression is that the Gita gives first the highest Truth, 
> > > > that 
> > > > there is no way enlightenment can be limited/defined etc. 

That may be your impression, but the actual verses do not appear to
support such an impression, IMO.


> > > >And then gives lower truth about the type of behaviour that is 
> > > > more conducive for the aspirant to gain this state.
....
> 
> > But then one of 
> > MMY's hobbyhorses is that scriptures have been
> > interpreted as PREscriptive of behavior conducive
> > to enlightenment when they're actually DEscriptive
> > of one who *is* enlightened--i.e., cause and
> > effect got reversed once knowledge of effortless
> > transcending had been lost.

I agree that in the context of the verses, these qualities are
descriptive, not prescriptive. However, given the yamas and niyamas,
which are prescriptive and are similar to the above qualities, I don't
beleive that it is hurtful to aspire to these positive qualities, and
to tend away from the negative qualites --  if one is so inspired to
do so. 

> ....The point is, you cannot see it
> from the outside, from the behaviour. The subjective only the
> enlightened knows himself.

While it is primarily subjective, the verses do seem to point to
necessary qualities for "qualification" of steady prajna / divine
qualities, both positive "attained" qualities, and negative "shun"
qualities.  All of these may be necessary, but not sufficient to
define a person of steady prajna / divine qualities.

Following is another way to look at it. Ask, can a person be of steady
prajna / divine qualities if they are: craving, sorrowful, 
attachmented, fearful, angery, of troublesome demeanor, hs wandering
senses, strong desires for sensual pleasures, impure heart,
non-persevering, uncharitable, unable to sacrifice, do not study the
scriptures, unable to be austere, dishonesty, lacking in equanimity,
rough / not gentle, immodesty, unforgiveness, weak and unclean?

Perhaps. But there is not a uniform distribution of persons of steady
prajna / divine qualities in each group -- which would be the case if
these qualiteis had no 'predictive power" that is, if the model was
worthless. 

For example, given 1000 people with these qualities, and 1000 people
of the opposite qualites, I venture that the negative group will have
no or few persons of steady prajna / divine qualities and the positive
group will have many. 

Another aspect of signs of spiritual unfoldment / steady prajna /
divine qualities, are the eeg, PET scans and related scientific work
to define "enlightenment" markers. Are these not signs? To hold that
there are absolutely "no outer signs" of spiritual unfoldment, that
is, it is purely subjective, would be to hold that any scientific
markers are invalid and the pursuit of such is folly. I don't think M
holds this, thus he must hold that some "outer signs" are valid.

A broader point is the folly of enlightenment labels and
categorizations. Claiming or bestowing Enlightenment labels creates an
abstract pedestal. The pedestal, often nebulously defined, or claimed
"undefinable", becomes a bizzare abstraction which people bow to, and
ponder endlessly questions such as "do the enlightened display
outwards signs or not". To me that is a perversion. 

Given the choice of spending time with someone who is "enlightened"
(no attributes other than that) vs. a person who "never becomes angry"
or "exhibits deep and meaningful compassion to all he encouters" or
"who is totally non-violent", or "never has a negative, hateful,
thought or word" or "has lost all sense of ego, myness, ownership, and
control" -- there is no contest: I would chose all of the persons of
positive attributes over someone placed on the abstract pedestal of
non-defined, attributeless in behavior, "enlightnement".

Why asprire to enlightenment? Even 'as if" an "individual" could ever
become enlightened. Even if "seeking" is counter productive to the goal. 

It is far more attractive to me to cultivate a state of "steady
prajna" or a permanent state of non-anger, etc, than some abstraction
called enlightenment.










To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to